Why no love for Japan?

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Something I've noticed around here....

There are an inordinate number of timelines where Germany avoids the Nazis; whether it becomes an authoritarian democracy a la Putin's Russia, a shiny happy FDR in the 1930s, or some other group starts putting on the Reich, we explore alternate Germany's in incredible detail.

But Japan? Well, no matter what the POD, people assume Japan will become insane military expansionists, to the point we discuss a war with France in 1936 (or 1906), or assume that Japan would go to war with a successful Republican China.

Why is this the case?

Primarily, at least in my view, the Militarists and industrialist had taken over in the 19th century when they supervised the marginalizing of the Emperor, and the persecution and destruction of the Samurai class.

And that is a P.O.D> a bit before 1900.

The Japanese Militarists and industrialists did not want to be a western style great power, they wanted to be what a collection of medieval tradesmen and clansmen thought a western great power was.

That's something else altogether.

[FDW]

Well, the lack of focus on the potential Japans here is a result of the fact that most of the user base here was educated primarily in Western (American and European) history classes and nothing else. I hope to be an exception to that after I take Chinese history in the fall as the first part of my tour through East Asian history.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by FDW

Well, the lack of focus on the potential Japans here is a result of the fact that most of the user base here was educated primarily in Western (American and European) history classes and nothing else. I hope to be an exception to that when I take Chinese history in the fall.

How will studying CHNESE history help you learn about JAPAN?

COntrary to common preconception all asian peoples are NOT interchangable.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Because it takes research that can't be done with just a hour looking up stuff on Google.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

How will studying CHNESE history help you learn about JAPAN?

COntrary to common preconception all asian peoples are NOT interchangable.

I was referring to East Asian history in general there. And Chinese is only the first step, I also plan on tackling all the histories of the various East Asian countries, as I what I've seen on the genocide interests me, and I want to see more.

[sharlin]

Without sounding like advertising i'm writing a Pre WW1 story, the link to it is below and of the countries involved, Japan is one of them.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by FDW

I was referring to East Asian history in general there. And Chinese is only the first step, I also plan on tackling all the histories of the various East Asian countries, as I what I've seen on the genocide interests me, and I want to see more.

Yeah, that's what I figured, I just felt like being a smart@$$, sorry about that.

On the other note, I think that Japan was handicapped by being denied a secular rennaisance. They went from a strict medieval heirarchy to a modern western country by virtue of the forced trade with the west.

That kind of laid a trip on their heads and gave them a serious amount of "Get our before someone else gets it and get the westerners back. That and the desire to create an asian sphere of protection free from European machinations..

[FDW]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

snip

It's alright, I'm not one to take things too personally.

But yeah, going on my thread of thought. Those in the West have missed out on a lot due to the neglect of East Asian history, especially as there are so many events that could literally be described as free-for-alls (an example for Japan would be the Sengoku era, which is probably the most known pre-modern Japanese era to Western audiences).

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by FDW

It's alright, I'm not one to take things too personally.

But yeah, going on my thread of thought. Those in the West have missed out on a lot due to the neglect of East Asian history, especially as there are so many events that could literally be described as free-for-alls (an example for Japan would be the Sengoku era, which is probably the most known pre-modern Japanese era to Western audiences).

Well you're not wrong about that, I myself note a distressing lack of education i nthe east asian region in my own e4ducation.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Well you're not wrong about that, I myself note a distressing lack of education i nthe east asian region in my own e4ducation.

I really started to notice my lack in East Asian education, once I took a look at the history of the Three Kingdoms Era of Korea (A misnomer if there was one) and realized how fucking awesome it was, especially Goguryeo.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by FDW

I really started to notice my lack in East Asian education, once I took a look at the history of the Three Kingdoms Era of Korea (A misnomer if there was one) and realized how fucking awesome it was, especially Goguryeo.

You know the general western lack of education about South East Asia and the whole Asian shpere is probably why wer're so abysmally bad at Asian wars.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

You know the general western lack of education about South East Asia and the whole Asian shpere is probably why wer're so abysmally bad at Asian wars.

Probably so.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Primarily, at least in my view, the Militarists and industrialist had taken over in the 19th century when they supervised the marginalizing of the Emperor, and the persecution and destruction of the Samurai class.

Then why was Japan a respectable member of the international community before 1932, signing disarmament treaties, treating its colonies at least well (and in the case of Micronesia and Taiwan, far better) than European powers, expanding the suffrage, cutting military spending after WW1, etc?

Japanese expansionism is a sign of some sort of misconception about what being a western style great power is, whereas the partition of the Ottoman Empire and conquest of Africa by the British are in no way inimical to the perception of them as a liberal, civilized great power.

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

That kind of laid a trip on their heads and gave them a serious amount of "Get our before someone else gets it and get the westerners back. That and the desire to create an asian sphere of protection free from European machinations..

Yea, one of the things people forget is that the Brits and other powers almost created treaty ports in Japan, and had a habit of bombarding the cities when the Japs were uppity.

This is one of the reasons that the war with the western powers was more popular than the China war initially.

Originally Posted by omega21

On the other hand, I'm thinking that this socialist movement could have been a reaction to the stifling school system.

And not caused by labor unrest, desire for change and liberalism, etc?

Originally Posted by Kome

Taking the Germany/Japan comparison further it appears that paradoxically losing wars causes Nazis to rise in Germany, while winning wars causes militarists in Japan.

I would argue that winning wars would have emboldened the militarists in Germany, and perhaps led to a permanent "silent dictatorship."

But I also don't blame Hitler for Germany's gleeful desire to conquer Europe repeatedly. This is where I'm gonna plug The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism again.

Originally Posted by Fenrir_Angerboda

I would argue that a POD to change OTL Imperial Japan would have to start around the Meiji Restoration.
It all builds from the Restoration, picks up speed during the First Sino-Japanese War, Russo-Japanese War, World War I, and hits it's high point with the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese war and WWII.

Wait, why does the Sino-Japanese War and WW1 indicate some sort of disease in Japanese culture? Why was Japan such a model member of the international community before 1930?

People keep repeating this model of Japan that does not square with how it actually acted during this period.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by FDW

Probably so.

There is also the destructive myth of the "Inscrutable Asian" and the "Yellow Peril" that permeated the first half of the 20th century to the pointthat up until the 1970's they would not let you put Asian or asian looking charecters on TV. Remember what a huge deal it was to have George Taekie playing a Japanese charecter?

They even cast David Carradine as Kwai Chang Cain because Bruce Lee "Looked too Asian."

[FDW]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

There is also the destructive myth of the "Inscrutable Asian" and the "Yellow Peril" that permeated the first half of the 20th century to the pointthat up until the 1970's they would not let you put Asian or asian looking charecters on TV. Remember what a huge deal it was to have George Taekie playing a Japanese charecter?

They even cast David Carradine as Kwai Chang Cain because Bruce Lee "Looked too Asian."

I'm only 21, but I can imagine that it was a big deal back then.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by FDW

I'm only 21, but I can imagine that it was a big deal back then.

I was too young as well being ony 42.

But even so, I love to laugh at reruns of old shows that have exclusive white actors done up in face paint to play asian and native AMerican charecter.

Who can forget how absurd Dawn Wells looked as an indian princcess in a certain episode of bonanza.

[DerGreif]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

[...] The Germans had a constitution in the German Empire that ensured the Wilhelmine Army was politically exempt from control by On High, and this was fatal to the German Empire (though not an element directly leading to the rise of Fascism). [...]

What do you mean by that?

The military was controlled by the Emperor. The problem was - especially in the late phase of ww1 - that the Emperor was a really weak person, who could easily be swayed with a lot of erratic behaviour included on top of that. The same goes for Bethmann Hollweg who never really thought of confronting the army leadereship over military matters until it was too late. Of course, he also held only power of over his secretary of defence.

Additionally the military was partially federalised. Bavaria, Württemberg and Saxony controlled their own armies in peace time.

Of course, if you mean the lack of democratic control, I can agree more to that. But that was something already changing in Germany, although ever so slowly. WW1 effectively killed what was an already ongoing process of democratisation which in the end would have encompassed control of the military. Actually the secretary of defence was very deferential when it came to budget decisions. The parliament already controlled that and there were no larger fights over military budgets. That was part of the reason that the German army had a smaller per capita budget than France at the beginning of ww1, although Germany had already started to increase the budget since 1912 due to lacking behind the other great powers.

Take for example the Zabern affair. If something like this would have happened again two or three years later without an ongoing ww1, than I have no doubt that the army would have been put under parliamentary control.

Edit: @Faeelin: I agree with you. I most certainly will take your suggestions into consideration for Japan in my ATL.

Kind regards,
G.

[modelcitizen]

What if Perry didn't force the issue with Japan?

Then again, what if another western power did instead? Mightn't things have gone worse, or, better, or?

With China, the canvas is in some ways a lot bigger and grander. What if the Treasure Fleet wasn't dismantled, and, instead, kept going around Africa and scared the snot out of Portugal and Spain...

[Henriksson]

I for one think it's interesting to note the brief explosion of strikes and riots in the years following the end of the Russo-Japanese war, and that was a war Japan won - consider if the war had instead ended badly for the Japanese. Perhaps less military expansionism and a more organized labour movement.

[Faralis]

Another way to change Japanese history a lot is ( ironically ) a fast defeat of the Germans, say there is no compromise in 1938, Hitler got his war ( just this time the SU is a belligerent from the beginning ) and looses badly ...

I doubt the US would stop boycotting with all the China related "niceness", so the Japanese try the same thing without the world looking at Europe ... and its defeated much sooner ( it sounds stupid, but not impossible with such "brilliant" leaders ) or the cooler heads prevail and they have to retreat from China.

It could go very good for them or very bad ...


EDIT:

Originally Posted by Henriksson

I for one think it's interesting to note the brief explosion of strikes and riots in the years following the end of the Russo-Japanese war, and that was a war Japan won - consider if the war had instead ended badly for the Japanese. Perhaps less military expansionism and a more organized labour movement.

The Japanese were near bankruptcy by the end of the war, just a bit less definitive victory at Satsuma, or the Russians keeping Fort Arthur for a bit more time it could be fatal for them ...